Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's real hot. Here live. Alright, everyone. Welcome back from town meeting break. Hopefully, it was restful and eventful for all of you. We are picking up work today on Tuesday, March 10, and we are looking at

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: draft 26Dash550Number2.3.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That is correct. Thank you. We are starting off with, Tucker Hansen Tucker Anders, legislative counsel, to go through the words on the page.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Cable is yours, Sarah. Good afternoon, Tucker Andersen, Legislative Counsel. For all those watching online, those in the room members of the committee, we are going to be working off of draft 2.3, which was just posted to the committee information page moments ago. In fact, we went from draft 2.1 to 2.3 rather rapidly. Welcome to crossover. This is drafting request 20Six-five50, which is the committee's proposal for an omnibus emergency management and response bill. What I will do is cover each of the proposals and some of the words on the page for each of the sections with the caveat that much of this is also new to me. So the depth of my testimony may be, well, shallow. But I will do my best to orient you to any legal issues that I am aware of and some of the consequences that I know in each of the sections. Alright, starting in section one, this adds a new section 52 to title 20 and I'll flag for you that all of the 20 BSA section 52 through 54, potentially 55, I can't remember how many 50s are in here. This is all in the sub chapter that's under the division of emergency management and emergency management generally. All hazards, if you remember that term. In this new section 52, the proposal is to create a Ready Response Grant program. Subsection A defines Ready Response, meaning the provision of short term food and water resources, logistical support, transportation to individuals in Vermont who do not have adequate access to food and water at agreed upon times when the division, and from this point forward, whenever I say the division, that means the division of emergency management, seeks resource assistance from a grantee or responds to an all hazard event or state of emergency. I did tease that this would have relationship with all hazard. Do we remember all hazards from last session? Weather events, health events, disease, radiation, disasters generally. Okay, chemical spills. Subsection B, the program is created and it will be managed and administered by the division. The division is directed toward an annual grant to an eligible food bank to source, store, and distribute shelf stable, ready to eat foods and bottled water at times and in types and quantities will be from a MOU with the division. We're on page three, subsection C. The grant shall be in an amount sufficient to compensate the grantee for all costs incurred, the cost of cycling food and water at agreed upon intervals, the value of distribution center storage capacity, operational capacity to stage materials in anticipation of need, and the cost of distribution whenever the division seeks resource assistance. I just realized there's a technical correction on the first page. Bye for you all later.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's general US management operation unit.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: It is a Memorandum of Understanding.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Is this an MOA? I was

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: trying to relate it to this.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Your reason?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Sorry. Rep Hooper. I was trying to

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Reason that we're specifying bottled water as opposed to a tanker of water or something that defeats our move a couple sessions ago to reduce our plastic consumption?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: That is a question aimed at policy and intent. Voices I did not make. Rabbi. So

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: the food bank folks requested this language, and bald was in their terminology. We have people in the room who could probably answer to that. If anybody in the gallery wants to raise their hand, we'll be right back.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Why don't we actually hold the questions to get to that portion when they come up? So, I'll give that one. Yeah.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks, Yout. Okay, at the end of subsection C, there is an additional definition. It is an including definition, which means this is not limited, it is just providing examples. Value of operational capacity for purposes of these calculations includes leased storage space, delivery vehicles, drivers, warehouse selectors, and other operational costs. Subsection D, food and water supplies that are subject to a grant and under the grantee's control will be rotated and replenished according to established industry guidelines and best practices. Food and water shall be redistributed in an equitable manner by the grantee through the charitable food system in Vermont to 26 USC five zero one(three) nonprofit organizations in Vermont. Okay, that is the internal revenue to code exemption for nonprofit organizations. Subsection e, to the extent the division requests services from the grantee that are not covered by the program, a separate agreement will be executed. Same page at the bottom under the heading Technical Rescue Grant Program, a new section 53 is added to title 20. This is for the Technical Rescue Grant Program. The program is created in subsection A for the purpose of assisting Vermont Fire Departments, EMS agencies, and technical rescue agencies with the improvement of operational readiness and investment in specialized equipment. It is to be administered by the Department of Public Safety. In subsection B, a working group is created related to the technical rescue grant. It is the technical rescue grant working group. It's established to review applications and recommend awards to the commissioner of public safety and is composed of the following members. The manager of Vermont USAR, who will be the chair. One member of the senate committee on government operations appointed by the committee on committees. One member of house gov ops and military affairs appointed by the speaker. A representative of a fire department appointed by the Commissioner of Public Safety, and a representative of an emergency medical services agency appointed by the Commissioner of Health.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Subsection C. Just wanted to stop real quick. Think Robert Hooper has other question.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, it's minor. But I'm wondering, at the bottom of page three, section D, where it says 26 nonprofit organizations. Why do we name how many there are? Name or number how many there are?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: The 26? Yeah. That's the title of the US code.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: it would

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: be similar.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So 26 is part of the thing. Okay. When you were talking, I thought you said that there were 26 of them. I was like, that seems like a bad idea. Carry on. Thank you.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: I can always make the language more clear by saying two nonprofit organizations that qualify under 26 USC five zero one.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Could be I'm the only person who understands this.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: More likely my writing and narration. And subsection C, and we're going to move on to page five. You are familiar with this, assume, because you deal with a lot of working groups, task forces, otherwise. This deals with the statutory compensation rates for the members of the working group. Legislative members get paid pursuant to Title II provisions for compensation duties on these working groups and the non legislative members get paid according to 32 VSA Section ten ten. And I will flag that for a provision that comes up, later, I believe. Subsection D, eligibility. Fire departments, EMS agencies, and technical rescue agencies operating in Vermont are eligible for the grants. Applicants have to demonstrate their use, planned use, or need for technical rescue operations within service area. All grant applicants shall submit their application on a form adopted by the department. And the department, we're on line 16 on page five, is directed to prioritize grant awards for applicants that maintain a MOU with the division, function as regional technical rescue teams, That's apparently on page six, limitations on the amount of the grant awards. Maximum award to an applicant in a given fiscal year is $5,000 and the program is limited to $25,000 in total grants in any given fiscal year. Subsection F, governing the application review. The department is directed to adopt procedures governing application submission forms, review scoring, and recommendation awards. Scoring shall include alignment with the program priorities, operational need, geographic service area, feasibility of the project, cost effectiveness, and sustainability. You may recall from some other examples that have come up this session that procedures are adopted differently from administrative rules. They are both governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, but procedures do not require, public hearings, the same formal rule adoption process, and do not have the force of law. They only guide the individual agency in the administration of one of its functions. Each grant recipient in subsection G shall submit to the department a final expenditure report, proof of purchase, training completion, and a narrative description of how the grant improved technical rescue capacity for the grant recipient. There is a requirement on line 13 for an annual report due November 15 from the department to your committee and the Senate Committee on Government Operations summarizing the grants that have been awarded, outcomes, and program recommendations. You will know from your recent work that there is no exemption at the end of this from two VSA section 23 subsection d. So unless that's added, this will be reviewed in five years for repeal. Subsection h, the department may adopt rules as needed to implement this section separate from the procedures. Alright. We're gonna move through page six onto seven. You'll see the reader assistance heading threatening and obstructing first responders. Top of page seven, a new section thirty twenty is added to title 13 governing threatening first responders during public safety emergencies. There are two definitions in subsection a. First, for first responder is any law enforcement officer certified by the BCJC, firefighters, and EMS personnel. Subdivision two, a public safety emergency is an emergency event in which a first responder must engage in the lawful performance of a legal duty to address an immediate threat to public health or safety. A few notes on minor corrections that I made in preparing this for you all. There was a shift from the description of the event as an acute event to an emergency event to ensure some clarity around what is being discussed here. Subsection B, this is the enforceable criminal provision.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: You. Just a really quick clarification, Tucker. So that shift will only have this section of statute apply to all hazards events, not?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: It is broader than all hazards events, which have a particular level of seriousness. It would broadly apply to any event emergency. So that could be responding to an individual person's health needs.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, thank you. My misunderstanding, and I appreciate that because that was the intent of the original legislation that was drafted. Thank you.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection B, the operative enforceable criminal provision. And I'll note a few technical corrections made in here, mostly around making sure that the standard was not repeated multiple times unnecessarily. It is unlawful for an individual to intentionally engage in any of the following conduct. First technical correction I'll note for you, person to individual. The bill is introduced referred to persons that would apply to corporations as well as bodily individuals. Reading this, I assumed that this was not intended to apply to artificial persons. Alright. It's unlawful for the individual to intentionally, that's the standard, intentional conduct within 25 feet of a first responder, previously defined during a public safety emergency, provided I added the proviso, it was previously incorporated in the individual subdivisions, I moved it up because it is part of the standard of evaluating the conduct, provided that the first responder announces that they are a first responder and warns the individual not to approach. So that proviso means that those two things have to happen before the conduct can be considered a criminal act. Subdivision one, obstruct or impede the first responders ability to perform the first responders duties. Or subdivision two, threaten the first responder with physical harm. Alright, the penalty in subsection C. You have to make another technical correction. It will be an individual who is convicted of a violation of the section shall be imprisoned not more than sixty days or fined not more than $500 or both. One second.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Language would seem to put a burden on the first responder to individually notify, not yell out as groups that on our first responders stay back?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: The term that is used is analysis. It is not specific that notice be provided to the individual. However, if this is something that the committee wants to explore and hear more nuanced testimony on, I am more than happy to coordinate with my judiciary colleagues.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: What about one fifteen? Bob, could you clarify the question a

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: little bit more or six. Yeah.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: We could do that.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: It's whether or not this uses the term individual for the notification by the first responder. And if you're standing there with 25 people, you have to say, hey, Kate, Kate, stay back. Oh. And Oh, no. Are you done, Bob? Yeah. On that point. Okay. On that I was wondering if it would

[Unidentified Committee Member]: say an individual or individuals, and that would include a group.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If you added the work, is that something that would make sense in the writing?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: I will look into the standards here and determine whether using warn the individual also includes announcing and warning to a group of individuals.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, the section we're talking about then is line 15 under section B. Is that your suggestion? Yeah. Is to the individual or individuals?

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: And not

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: further well.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: In C, you know, we had that situation where somebody tried to help a doctor tried to get into the situation with the woman that got shot in Minneapolis or wherever and got pushed away. The fine and the imprisonment thing seems pretty strict for some situations, you may be not strict enough for others.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I I think that's when the state's attorneys prosecutorial discretion would come into play.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Shall be. Yeah. Well, if they're if they are prosecuted then pretty limited.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All worthy conversations. Reporter statements.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: This is we discussed this before. Right? Correct? Yes. Okay. And do we have people from journalists? Yeah. Great.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We have Just check.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Awesome.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Have Wendy Mayes. And others. So

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: many thoughts. We'll keep going.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, onto the next reader assistance heading, Disability Inclusion and Emergency Planning. This is a big bite, so I'll cover the 25,000 foot version as we move through the sections and explain what is happening in each one of the statutes. Section four twenty BSA section three a related to the duties of the Division of Emergency Management is amended to require that in assistance with state emergency response commissions, local emergency planning committees, and the regional emergency management committees, that a component of that assistance includes the designation of access and functional needs coordinators, completion of disability led training programs and inclusive training exercises, and finally, the proper execution of after action reviews to address accessibility gaps. Alright. Each of those three duties was taken from h nine zero one, the short form that you got a walk through of a few weeks ago. Subsection d, in coordination with the division of fire safety, the division shall inspect all emergency shelter spaces for compliance with the ADA. Just wanted to note that there is already a requirement in federal law under the Americans with Disabilities Act that emergency shelters, in particular those that are used during these sort of all hazard events, do comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as far as accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This adds the requirement that the division inspect these sites to ensure compliance with the ADA. With the federal. Section five twenty BSA section six is amended. This relates to local and regional organizations for emergency management. In subsection C of that section, local organizations are required to adopt an all hazards emergency management plan with, from the division. This adds new language requiring that the emergency management plan that is adopted pursuant to that subsection utilizes an access and functional needs framework. Local organizations are required to ensure that this management plan applies the communication, medical needs, independence, supervision, transportation framework. This comes up one more time. I'll refer to this as Sea Mist, And that is apparently a known acronym, which is also why needs is not capitalized in the quoted reference. Alright. In subdivision two. The current law of the division is required to amend local emergency plan templates and any best management practices that are issued to municipalities to address the need for the siting of local and regional emergency shelters. Language is added to ensure that this includes consideration of access by individuals with diverse functional needs. The division is then required to evaluate universal access standards as a component of the plan, practices, and guidance concerning the citing of these emergency shelters. Moving into Subdivision 3, going from page nine and ten, excuse me, and in Subdivision 4 the same amendment is happening here. It's including disability led organizations as parties that must be consulted with in the preparation of these local and vegetable plants. Okay, subsection D midway through page 10 relating to regional emergency management committees in Subdivision 3 B in the list of non voting members. And I flagged this during the walk through of H 901, but for purposes of these regional planning committees dealing with emergency management, there are voting members, which is a fairly limited group, and then there are non voting members that includes this exhaustive list of organizations that could be part of the planning committee. You're amending the non voting member list. So, voting members shall include individuals with lived disability experience and individuals representing organizations that serve vulnerable populations. You will note that previously, if you go on to page 11, organizations serving vulnerable populations were one of the discretionary groups. They've been made mandatory at the beginning of this subdivision. Towards the bottom of page 11 in subdivision five, this requires these committees to adopt a regional plan that utilizes an access and functional needs framework, that is the SEMIST framework again. Bottom of page 11, section six, this amends the local emergency planning committee section 20 BSA section 32, page 12, Subsection B requirement for included representatives on these committees. You'll note on line five, it adds organizations serving vulnerable populations. Further on in that page in subsection C, dealing with the local emergency planning committees and their duties, a new duty is added in subdivision one. Local emergency planning committees shall coordinate with disability led organizations throughout all phases of emergency management planning. Moving on to page 13. This amends 20 VSA section 51, which was part of last year's emergency management omnibus. This relates to all hazard and weather alert systems for municipal corporations. As you'll recall, upon the request of a municipal corporation, the division is directed to assist the municipal corporation with access to some of these systems and new language is added in subsection B that any all hazard or weather alert systems that are used by a municipal corporation shall include communication systems that are accessible by individuals with disabilities. So this adds an express accessibility requirement to those communication systems that are used.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rep Nugent.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Is there

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: a definition of vulnerable population in our laws?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: There is also a standard that the General Assembly has given to the Office of legislative council for what vulnerable populations covers for purposes of statutory revision. And I'm happy to point you to what that covers under both current law and the guidance that this branch has given for purposes of statute. Alright, moving on to section eight. This adds a new section 54, which prohibits the use of certain disability registries. We're moving on to page 14. No public agency shall maintain an emergency response or disaster disability registry. And for purposes of this section, emergency response or disaster disability registry means any registry or list that is used to identify individuals with disabilities for purposes of emergency response or evacuation. As originally proposed, this was bundled with a requirement that rules be adopted governing the evacuation plans for certain types of housing and high rise structures, And that those rules replace the current practice of adopting registries that are used primarily by the E911 board. They have a system called the CARE system, where individuals voluntarily register that they are an individual with a disability who might need special evacuation services. So this was proposed initially as a replace, repeal. Now you just have the prohibition on the use of the registry. And I am not certain at this point whether this might have the unintended consequence of eliminating a resource that is needed by certain individuals without replacing it with some other form of protection in case of an evacuation. Section nine, this amends emergency operation plan requirements under title 16 in 16 VSA section 4,680. New language is added in subsection A. This is applied to supervisory unions and supervisory districts. Think broadly of educational corporations because in later language this also applies to some of the independent schools. The new language that is added requires that an all hazards emergency operation plan, which is required under this statute currently, shall include evacuation plans for individuals with disabilities and continuity of services for students with disabilities during emergencies. Provisions of that plan shall also be recorded in the individualized education plan, IEP, for each student that is covered by the operations plan.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Everybody got that intersection? Yeah. Okay.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Moving into an entirely new subject, the town forest fire wardens. Section 10 amends 10 VSA section twenty six forty one related to the appointment, removal of these town forest fire wardens in subsection a, the current structure, which requires approval by the select board of an appointee by the commissioner to occupy this local office. And instead states expressly that the town forest fire warden for a municipality shall be the chief of the municipal fire department that serves the municipality or the chief's designee. We'll flag it in a subsection not included here that immediately follows. It deals with the unincorporated towns and gores that exist in the state and the appointment of fire wardens for those unincorporated towns. It is possible to sweep all of that together in the subsection a and just expressly call out that for purposes all municipalities and, units of local government throughout the state, that it is the chief of the fire department that serves that unit of government. It is the town forest fire warden. I flagged at one point for you all that there are fire wardens that exist in about 10 plus charters. It's not entirely clear whether those were intended to be separate offices at the local level. But in the event that there is conflicting law contained in those charters, the charters are gonna control. And those municipalities, I believe when I looked at it, Randolph might have been one, will have a separate appointment process for the, town forest fire wardens. And the only reason I flagged that is that both in the language of these charters and on Randolph's website, I did notice that they referred to that officer as being in control of suppressing forest fires in the town. Yeah. Heading. Okay. But perhaps something to address at a later date. Under the heading public safety communications on page 15 in section 11, you have the authorization for the ongoing expenditure of funds that have been held in reserve under two prior acts of the General Assembly. Subsection a, General Assembly authorizes the use of any monies appropriated or held in reserve pursuant to 2022 act one eighty five section b 1,100 as amended by two subsequent acts. That's 2023 act 78, 2023 act 87 or the Department of Public Safety to procure and install equipment for the purpose of building out a computer aided dispatch system for public safety communications. Why is necessary? This is necessary because under the appropriations in those acts, it was stated that the sum total of the funds that were appropriated would be held in reserve pending certain benchmarks, and that in order for those funds to be used in the future, the general assembly would have to reauthorize the use of those funds by the Public Safety Communications Task Force for some of the pilot projects and other duties that those acts required. So here, you are authorizing the use of those reserve funds for the new purpose of building out this system, and you are allowing the Department of Public Safety to be the public agency that is going to use and administer those funds.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Hooper Brandoff, and then Hango.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Doctor, thank you so much for highlighting Randolph as one of the 10 baby towns. Could I then see the rest of that list at your convenience? Absolutely. Appreciate that so much. I'll send you a link right to it. Or should just look? I'll help you out. I'll just do that. There is the Google machine. Yeah, it's a little stressful. Right, hang on.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Just on this section 11, this is for the committee and anybody who's listening, very preliminary language, and we know that we're going to have to put dollar amounts and time lines in this. Forthcoming, we just have not had the opportunity to talk about that yet. But it is coming. So I thank you, Tucker, for piecing all those acts and resolves together.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: And we are not done. There are so many pieces left to piece in subsection B from that 2023 act 78, we are notwithstanding those provisions related to the creation and the existence of the task force. And you're expressly stating that the task force shall continue in existence until 02/15/2027. Something that I will note is that, this was in the budget and it was missing a few pieces that are typically attached to working groups, committees, task forces, and boards, including a date by which that task force ceases to exist, which is typically upon the completion of its duties. So in order to move beyond that implication, you are expressly giving a life time to the task force. You are allowing the task force in the next line to meet as necessary to advise the department on executing recommendations and a final design plan and notwithstanding provisions in that 2023 Act 78, you are stating that the members of the task force shall be entitled to per diem compensation, and reimbursement under 32 VSA section 10. It was something that I noticed in the structure and the budget is that the budget called out for a specific per diem rate. If you want to continue with that, this language can be adjusted. It was $150 per day. And then there was express call outs for reimbursement that is not generally covered, for other task forces and committees. So this ties it to the general law for now, which is 50 per day and reimbursement of certain expenses under Section ten ten. If you want to give the extras, you most certainly can. Section 12, the appropriations. So the following sums are appropriated from the general fund in FY '27. First, $70,163 to the agency of administration for purposes of supporting the creation of state emergency and all hazard response and preparedness materials in 15 languages, including English and American Sign Language through the Vermont Language Justice Project. Dollars 7 and 20,000 to DPS for purposes of supporting USAR. Subdivision three on page seventeen, twenty five thousand to DPS to support the technical rescue, and I have to change the name, grant program. Finally, 540,000 to the Office of the Secretary of State for purposes of supporting Vermont Access Network current operations and programming. And this is set to take effect 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Robert Hango, then Hooper and Burlington.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Just quickly, those numbers you'll recall came from our budget memo to house appropriations. So those dollar figures are not new to us. Those are ones that we supported.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. No, a lot of those bills obvious components of things that we took testimony on just with the greatest skill of counsel, getting it all organized and proposal of legislation. Robert Hooper, did you

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: have a question, sir?

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Actually, back to page 13 of did I hear you say that we have on the bottom the new language, individuals with disabilities is a legally defined group. So we're gonna put out some kind of communication system that deals with deaf people, blind people, all nine yards. That's the obligation. And at the top of 14, I know we had a discussion on this from a privacy standpoint, but it seems like to me if we're having a flood at the top of 14. 14. We're having a flood at your trailer park and missus Jones is blind and deaf and on oxygen, it would behoove us to have the fire department know that they need to get to her first. But this seems to prohibit the fire department as a public agency maintaining a list that she's there with that. Does it that seems counterproductive. Great.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rebecca, good question.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. That's a really good question. And I have that flagged also for further discussion. We're going to hear from a group of witnesses on page nine zero one, which is this section of the bill, because really, we've only had a walk through. So we need to hear more. So please bring those questions up at that time as well. Bob, were you done? Yes. Okay. So you had another question about the alert system. The Vermont Language Justice Project, when they came in to testify, they specified that for $70,000 they could produce some canned statements in various languages to be and also ASL. They gave us an additional estimate. And we put that in our budget. So at least there would be something for us to start the discussion of that emergency alert in various languages.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: My concern was that a week before town meeting day, a friend of mine came in who was blind and deaf. So that's how far down the rabbit hole you might need to go. Mhmm. He definitely must.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So more conversation on that. And then if you're done with your questions, I had a question I don't know if it's technical for Tucker, but do we need a reference in here I think we do to the funding request that we supported for the Food Bank's Ready Response program, which was $1,000,000 But I understand that we are not really supposed to name specific organizations, but do we name them in the appropriation section?

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: If you would like to add that appropriation, I can do that. And to be clear, funds They're appropriated to state agencies to then administer the programs. So it would be yes, it would go to either the Department of Public Safety or to emergency management directly, who would then use it for the grant program.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I would like to see that in here because the more that's spelled out, the better appropriations will understand what we're asking for. And then there was a question earlier from Representative Hooper of Burlington about bottled water. Are we ready to move on to that? Or does anybody else have questions?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, I was gonna move on to the

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: next slug of what this is. Okay. That's part of it? Yes. Yes. Yep.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I was waiting for that slip of testimony passed. Counsel, you are released. Thank you, sir.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Up next, mister Sales, how are you? Well, thank you.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Nice. Can I grab a chair too? Please.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Or we have a, rest on us now.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Go right ahead.

[John Sayles (CEO, Vermont Foodbank)]: Good afternoon, everyone.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Welcome back. Thank you. Yeah. We're just, after meeting with folks in and around your orbit, you have this language now in the formal proposal. So we're just looking obviously, we have one or two questions right here. But if you wanted to speak to the relevant sections to your organization and organizations, please feel free, and we can open up for questions.

[John Sayles (CEO, Vermont Foodbank)]: Thank you. John Sales, for the record, CEO of the Vermont Food Bank. I live here in Montpelier.

[Carrie Stahler (Senior Manager of Government Relations, Vermont Foodbank)]: I'm Carrie Sailor. I'm the senior manager of government relations at Vermont Food Bank, I

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: live in

[John Sayles (CEO, Vermont Foodbank)]: Linden. So I was going to give some background and context, but given the time, I'll summarize that. Okay. Which is the I like the language that I heard, and I think that would certainly work for the program that we have in mind and have had conversations with Vermont Emergency Management. One of the key things is that the Vermont Food Bank does not have an inventory of the kinds of foods that we need for a program like this. Stock foods that are like groceries that people take home and they cook to create meals that then they eat. These are foods we're talking about that need to be ready to eat, things that people who don't have potable water or don't have electricity or don't have kitchen facilities, can sustain themselves until those services come back on online. And the food bank, I think we've talked about this before. We distribute about 14,000,000 pounds of food. We have three different distribution centers in the state, one in Barrie, one in Rutland, one in Brattleboro. And so we could cover the whole state and make sure that food is is where it needs to be, when it needs to be there. I think I think I'll stop right there. Think that's kind of some of the context, but I can address the water issue

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: if you like.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So

[John Sayles (CEO, Vermont Foodbank)]: so the reason it says bottled water is because at the Vermont Food Bank, we don't deal with bulk water. And in fact, if you talk to emergency management folks, they have contracts with with bulk water haulers, and and so they would do that directly in those situations. And also the the Vermont National Guard, if necessary, has they call them water buffalos, big trucks. So when we're talking about having bottled water, that's to for people to take to their homes, and in the where people don't have necessarily the ability to to go get that that water at a central location, or they don't need that quantity of water. So we can handle and move bottled water, and so it's always important to have that in stock. As we've looked at how to do this, we've talked about having not just single bottles of water, but also having gallons because when people are cooking or

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Baby formula.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It

[Carrie Stahler (Senior Manager of Government Relations, Vermont Foodbank)]: also makes it easier for all types of people to carry that water. I think your conversation about people with disabilities reminded me that a lot of folks who are older are not able to carry really heavy, a bucket or a five gallon tub, who knows, of water. And so that single serve bottled water actually makes it easier to have a variety of people be able to access that resource. And we would also do this distribution work through our network partner organizations. So we have about two fifteen to two twenty local food shelf organizations or meal sites who we already have MOUs with, we work with, we train. And those are the sort of retail main street organizations that most people would know. Those organizations would often, maybe not always, but often be the ones who are redistributing this to people. And many of them don't have storage space for tanks of water. They don't even have a parking lot for something like a water delivery system with one of those water buffaloes. So it's a little distinct.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: My comment was going to be, and correct me if anybody thinks this is wrong, that the Vermont Emergency Management will be able to contract with whomever they wish. And if they do want to contract with the National Guard for water buffalo, they certainly will do that in a place that that's appropriate. But for your organization, if they were to contract with you, that's where the bottled water came in specifically. Thank you. River Road.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: That's my thought too. I didn't want the National Guard showing a thousand gallons on the back of truck and having to sit there and fill up Pepsi bottles with it before they give it out. There's more water is useful for in such an emergency than just drinking.

[Carrie Stahler (Senior Manager of Government Relations, Vermont Foodbank)]: And I think that points to the part of this that by establishing this grant program, there would need to be that MOU process. Where we work with Vermont Emergency Management, and I think we really have a willing partner in the folks in emergency management. They recognize that the three to seven day window is currently not really well served when we have these large scale disasters that impact big geographic areas of our state. And so there would be a lot of those details to be worked out around when the National Guard is asked to bring a water buffalo versus when the food bank and our partners are asked to supply bottled water to X number of households. And in the conversations that we've had with them, those questions have come up. We've said that would really need to be part of this planning process. Based on what we and our local partners know from the disasters in 2023 and 2024, and then little ones that popped up in 2025. I think we have a lot of, unfortunately, have a lot of great experience in our communities where we would be able to work out what those tears or triggers were, for lack of a better term.

[John Sayles (CEO, Vermont Foodbank)]: Not to mention Irene was there then, remember that, and ice storms, and all the other great things that you have to have challenge with here.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for these folks?

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: You.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: You are up, sir. How are you?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm well. How are you? Not bad. No. It's been a little while. Okay.

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: I will be quick.

[Eric Forand (Director, Vermont Emergency Management)]: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Eric Forne, the director of the modern brings and managements. As we all know, I'm not here to directly advocate for any funding that is not in the governor's budget. However, I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss a gap that I see in the state's ability to respond quickly to disasters. Along disasters like the '23 and '24 flooding events, the state does not have immediately accessible food and water stores that it could provide to survivors to allow them the ability to stay in their homes. The state does also not have the means to quickly and efficiently transport and distribute food and water to survivors using preexisting locations and vehicles. Having access to a ready to deploy supply of water and food at the regional level would be beneficial to providers. Utilizing an existing network of food distribution locations would be efficient and using preexisting delivery trucks and routes would be economical. Supporting Vermonters immediately after a disaster is important as the state and federal resources are twenty four to thirty six hours out because the state does not have access to a cache of supplies and the federal government supplies are in Massachusetts and Maryland. Any support at the local level allows the emergency to potentially be solved at the local level in the quickest, most economical, and most efficient manner. So in a nutshell, have capacity past a certain time, but there is a small window at the beginning that if a emergency can be solved at a local level, that's the most efficient way to do it.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, Representative. Thank you, madam vice chair. You said Massachusetts and Maryland.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can you tell us more about what that

[Eric Forand (Director, Vermont Emergency Management)]: FEMA staging areas. So FEMA has a staging area at, the air force base in Danvers, Massachusetts. That's their forward operating base, but their main, cash is in Maryland. So if Vermont for example needs 20,000 pallets of water, it's going to go from Maryland to Danvers, Danvers to Vermont. So we're on the end of it and we have community points of distributions, and we have distributions planned where we can handle that coming in, and we can distribute it like we did during COVID, bringing people to airports and ex out. So we have a plan once it arrives, but that's gonna take a few days.

[Tucker Andersen (Legislative Counsel)]: And where does it go when it arrives?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Excuse me?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Where does it arrive to?

[Eric Forand (Director, Vermont Emergency Management)]: We have, the staging area is at the 13, municipal airports, state owned airports.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for this moment in time? This bill is a work in progress. I'm sure we'll chat more. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right, team.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Gonna suck that clock.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, that's still an hour off. Alright, folks. We are a little bit ahead of schedule right now, so I'm gonna call like a quick time out for a few minutes. I gotta run upstairs in the cafeteria and do a little

[Rep. Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: bit of press, but I

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: don't wanna miss the next thing. So I will be back as quickly as possible. Thank you for your time and attention.